In the Shadow of Two Gunmen 1
Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections:
The West Wing:
Season 2:
In the Shadow of Two Gunmen 1
Picking up a couple minutes after the assassination attempt, we learn that Bartlet and CJ have been slightly wounded; Josh, critically.
We see flashbacks from everyone's point-of-view of the events that led to Bartlet's election.
There's a downed fighter pilot in Iraq.
By Hannah F. (Cynicalchick) on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 10:39 am: I absolutely love how they mixed present-day with the flashbacks so well, and I enjoyed seeing how Bartlet came to get the nomination.
By Jesse on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 10:12 am:This is really, REALLY grungy nitpicking (as the Chief would say), but there seems to be an error in the title when Josh on the operating table flashbacks to the strategy meeting in Sen. Hoynes' office. It reads:
CAPITOL HILL OFFICES
SENATOR JOHN HOYNES
(D) - TEXAS
The issue is in the last line. There's no reason to put a parentheses around "D", as it's not a complete sentence. The parentheses occurs when that information is included in a regular sentence, such as "Sen. John Hoynes (D-Texas) was quoted as saying that he opposed the bill." It's a way to tell the reader the important details without adding a clause, like "Sen. John Hoynes, a Democrat from Texas, was quoted...." It's accepted political shorthand and is used everywhere. The state name should be used in the parentheses unless given elsewhere, such as "Most Texans approve the bill. Sen. Hoynes (D), a native of Texas, feels that...."
All that aside, there is NO reason to list the D in parentheses in a fragment like this. It should read:
CAPITOL HILL OFFICES
SENATOR JOHN HOYNES
D - TEXAS or (D - TEXAS)
Yeah, like I said, I know it's REALLY picky, but that's our jobs, right? ;-)
By Hannah F., West Wing/C&J Moderator (Cynicalchick) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:55 pm: Sweet zombie Jesus, Jesse...
By ScottN on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 8:43 am: Hey, CC, you know, we *are* nitpickers here
By Hannah F., West Wing/C&J Moderator (Cynicalchick) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 12:13 am: But that's borderline obsessive. ;)
By Jesse on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:38 am: I know, it is. I admit it. But it just jumped out at me.
By Jesse on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 7:22 pm:CJ mentions that the gunmen were put down with "seven-two-six caliber" JARs (Just-another-rifle) rifles. The rifles, she adds, are specially made for the Secret Service. Well, they must be! There is no such caliber as "seven-two-six." The caliber in question is a NATO standard, 7.62mm, NOT 7.26mm.
The bigger question here is whether or not the USSS uses JARs. As far as I can find, they use specially-made counter-sniper rifles based on the Remington 700 (but obviously heavily modified). JARs are real, I believe, but I can't verify if the Service uses them.
By Art Vandelay on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 9:15 am:As a matter of interest, how does a counter-sniper rifle differ from a regular rifle i.e. how is it specialised for that task (in layman's terms), thanks.